Wednesday, March 30, 2011

"Kinetic Military Action", "Squirmish", "Not-a-War", Not-Iraq" or "Bread-based Feces Containment Operation"?

The Dividist is not confused about our actions in Libya. We intervened militarily in a Libyan civil war on the side of the rebels to prevent their imminent annihilation at the hands of Moammar Gadhafi's forces. The timing of the intervention was determined by the military situation on the ground, as the rebels were within hours of losing their last stronghold in Benghazi. That is what we did. Full stop.

Whether this action was wise, where we go from here, how we went about conducting this operation, whether it was constitutional for our President to initiate military action without the consent of Congress - all can be debated. But there is no confusion about what we actually did. And yet...

Despite the President going to great pains to communicate exactly what we did and are doing in Libya, there appears to be a great deal of confusion from the right, left, center and others. There is no confusion in our actions. The confusion is in the obvious gap between the President's rhetoric and his actions.

As noted before, the most perceptive and illuminating coverage of political events are often to be found on the Daily Show and from Taiwan's Next Media Animation studios - The two media outlets are now setting the Gold Standard for political journalism. If the future of all media cannot explain the President's speech to us - who can?

Next Media TV:

The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Define and Conquer
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

And so the linguistic frontier of war euphemism takes another giant leap forward. But whether we are talking about the "Police Action" in Korea, "Winning Hearts and Minds" in Vietnam, the "No Fly Zone" in Kosovo, the "Humanitarian Mission" in Somalia, or the "Kinetic Military Action" in Libya - we would do well to recall the immortal words of William Shakespeare - "What's in a name? That which we call a war by any other name would still taste like a shit sandwich."

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Carnival of Divided Government
Septem et Quadrâgintâ (XLVII)
Special Ides of March Edition

Welcome to the 47th edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - The Special "Beware the Ides of March" Edition. "Beware" indeed. It is easy to overreact to the seemingly unending signs and portents of catastrophic disaster that surround us. But when you think about it, what do we really have to worry about besides revolution, war, earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear meltdowns, radioactive fallout, U.S. government insolvency, a stock market collapse and Charlie Sheen? I mean, other than that, it's all good.

Time to check in on our happily divided government and see how it is dealing with the stress.

Carnival of Divided Government
As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government Septem et Quadrâgintâ (XLVII), as in all of the CODGOV editions, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the major parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in The Dividist reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions. Among the on-topic posts, essays and articles we choose our top ten favorites for commentary and consideration. We hope you enjoy these selections, and have an adequate supply of potassium iodide tablets close at hand.

We begin with a recent multi-blog discussion lamenting the plight of the political center. Several Centrist and Indy bloggers weighed in and were subsequently inducted into the new and improved 2012 election edition of the Coalition of the Divided. Among the inductees: Damon Eris of Poli-Tea making "The Case for Multi-Party Government: Republicans and Democrats Simply Cannot Be Trusted" (also in a comment here); Solomon Kleinsworth of Rise of the Center observing "Wisconsin Illustrates Hazard of One Party Rule in Era of Major Party Arrogance"; and DLW of A New Kind of Third Party with an insightful comment:
"We need to have split government at every level, to at least force the two parties to have to gain the support of a handful of non members to pass anything. They just can’t be trusted anymore." - Solomon Kleinsworth

"I would take your call for divided government and raise you one. Divided government is considered to be control of the executive by one major party and control of the legislature by the other. More superior would be a legislature which is itself divided such that NO PARTY HAS MAJORITY CONTROL. The election of just 3 or 4 more Independents in the US Senate would ensure this. Just a few dozen Independents and third party candidates in the House would do the same." - Damon Eris

"I believe in a dynamic centrism from setting up the system so that neither side can get a "permanent majority" or dominate the other. In such a context, their incentive will be to work out "better" compromises more efficiently or with less grandstanding on both sides" - DLW
The Dividist is not quite finished with that particular Centrist discussion, as Mr. Kleinsworth still fails to understand that the existence of polling data for centrist policies does not prove anything about the practical political utility of flogging the dead horse centrist electorate he is imploring to "rise up". Still the Dividist appreciated the divided government commentary this discussion precipitated.

John Avlon of The Daily Beast recently opined at CNN how the "Gang of Six may solve U.S. debt mess":

"The heroes of this story are the so-called Gang of Six. The group is led by Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Saxby Chambliss, who are joined in meetings by Senate veterans of the president's deficit reduction panel -- Republicans Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo and Democrats Kent Conrad and Dick Durbin. The group's off-site negotiations have attracted more than 30 of their Senate colleagues. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom and is a sign of the strength of the center at a time when the activist extremes of both parties too often seem to be calling the shots...

But we're also seeing one of the benefits of divided government, that constructive compromise is essential to the success of legislation. The all-or-nothing approach is a sure loser. And we literally can't afford to delay action on dealing with the deficit and the debt."
The Gang of Six are the intellectual and policy heirs of the Simpson-Bowles report on solving the our burgeoning deficit crisis. The Dividist is already on the record with grudging support of the Simpson-Bowles plan. The Gang of Six gives us hope that something similar to the plan will make it into legislation. Speaking of Simpson-Bowles...

Andrew Sprung of XPOSTFACTOID takes note of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson opining in the pages of the Washington Post on just how President Obama can ensure that the momentum created by the president's commission on fiscal reform is not lost - noting "There's still hope for dealing with our debt challenges":
"If our commission was a test case for divided government, then we have offered resounding proof that the parties can work together for the good of the country. Our recommendations, which would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion, garnered support from 11 of 18 members (five Democrats, five Republicans and one independent). A 60 percent majority is enough to pass almost anything in Washington.

Our commission's plan is not ideal from either party's perspective, and it is unrealistic to expect either side to endorse it in its entirety or as an opening bid. But if both sides are serious about achieving reform, not just scoring political points or ensuring reelection, they will realize that our plan, or something equally comprehensive, represents the type of principled compromise that is in the country's best interests.

In the end, we are optimistic about the chances for fiscal reform and about the future of this country. The political system doesn't always move quickly or steadily, but the magnitude of the challenges ahead will require it to act. The nation desperately needs broad, bipartisan agreement based on shared sacrifices, not politics as usual. The fiscal commission's plan can serve as the starting point; the ending point must be something equally ambitious. Now is the moment of truth. The era of deficit denial is over. We are counting on our nation's leaders to rise to the challenge."
Against all odds, the Dividist is optimistic that something meaningful will emerge from this process.

The Dividist has noted before the discomfort and borderline contempt often expressed on the left for our constitutionally divided system of governance. Their plaintive longing for a more purely majoritarian system, not unlike European-style parliamentary government, is often quite explicit. Matt Yglesias and Dylan Mathews are recent examples. Jonathan Bernstein of A Plain Blog About Politics does a more than credible job poking holes in their dubious thesis with "Presidentialism vs. Madisonianism":
"First of all, what's the evidence for Matthews' proposition that divided government is no longer capable of producing "real" legislation? It's true that not all that much passed in the 110th Congress, during the waning days of the George W. Bush administration. But Clinton-era divided government produced plenty of significant legislation, including welfare reform, S-CHIP, a significant minimum wage increase, and balanced budgets -- and during Clinton's second term, they handled budget issues in general with a minimum of drama and brinkmanship...

I agree with Madison (see Federalists 10 and 51, of course) that majority-rules systems tend to be unstable. Parliamentary systems tend to deal with that in a few different ways. One is, as Yglesias says, by inserting another round of elite bargaining in order to form a government after the voters have had their say. Most parliamentary systems also have a strong bureaucracy that narrows the importance of the elected government. In my view, these devises (as well as corporatist arrangements, which are not necessarily related to parliamentary forms of government but do tend to go with them), are all ways of avoiding the instability of majority rule by weakening democracy."
The Dividist appreciates Professor Bernstein's erudite rebuttal and defense of our divided and contentious Madisonian system. Additional ammunition against the peculiar preference of many on the left for an elite "expert" bureaucratic or majority rule is also offered by Professor Marcus Ethridge's recent work.

The Liberal Ironist has some tactical negotiating advice for President Obama on how to manage a divided government to his legislative and political advantage in "Sire! The Conservatives Are Revolting!":
"I still think the President’s best tack to propose some budget cuts for the preceding 2 reasons, and because to win big confrontations in a divided government you have to be able to “out-reasonable” the other side. That doesn’t mean you move as far to their position as you can; it means you take meaningful actions to render opposition criticisms obsolete–provided you can do that without abandoning core political objectives. "
Good advice, and a good reason to keep our federal government divided.

Sara Jerome of the Hillicon Valley blog reports on how divided government is perceived by those looking to stop bad legislation, or at least ensuring a more measured consideration in "NAB's Smith sees divided government as an asset to stopping harmful bills":
"National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) President Gordon Smith sees divided government as a potential safeguard against fast-moving measures that could harm broadcast interests. "The fact of a divided government gives you a lot more procedural hurdles to utilize, if you need to, and to stop bad things," Smith said on an episode of C-SPAN's "The Communicators" filmed Thursday.”
The Dividist is relieved to know that President Obama, Congress, and broadcasters holding government mandated monopolies on broadcast spectrum will, between them, decide for us what technology is best to deliver the latest Charlie Sheen late-night video rants to our iPhones. The Dividist wouldn't want to miss anything.

Chuck Drury, writing at ABC Newspapers and presumably from Senate District 47 reminds us of how silly it is to rail against a lack of civility in US politics as if it is recent phenomena. It's not, as he shows us in "Politics has lacked civility from the beginning": "
"I personally am a fan of divided government. We seem to get the best results when our legislatures are of one party and the president or governors are of another. Single party rule leads to abuse of power and bad decisions. I have been more concerned about the recent lack of openness and transparency in the legislative process than I have about conflict and rancor in government. Spirited debate of the issues is a good thing! Too much power in one party leads to a detachment from the citizens they represent. This is borne out by the current difference in viewpoint between those of the political class and mainstream voters."

Charlotte Allen writes in the LA Times about a telling, if trivial and humorous example of One Party Rule overreach, and the restoration of common sense under divided government in "Stick a fork in it. We're done":
"The years from 2006 through 2010, starting with the Democratic takeover of the House and ending with the party's rout after two years of Barack Obama's presidency, were four years of an effort by a know-it-all liberal elite to impose sweeping and extreme social and fiscal measures on a centrist-to-right public: four years of turkey escabeche, so to speak. Now, with a GOP House and divided government, there seems to be a return to normalcy, and it's beginning with the promise of knives and forks that work."
Heh. I think even Washingtonian Democrats are happy that Nancy Pelosi and one party Democratic rule are no longer in charge of running the cafeteria.

Andrew Oh-Willeke, the Wash Park Prophet offers a thoughtful analysis of why those who would govern us seem out of sync with the wishes of the governed in "The entrenched Politician-Voter Disconnect":
"In the absence of divided government there is little incentive to stretch beyond a majority supported compromise. So, in American politics, voters are left between insisting that government function with deals negotiated between the left and right in exchange for a risk a damaging deadlock, within divided government, and government by a right of center, or left of center consensus with little to encourage it to be inclusive."
There is a lot to chew on in Andrew's piece, which should be read in full. Some the Dividist likes, some not so much. The Dividist does agree (mostly) with the conclusion quoted here, so he'll just pick a few nits and circle back.

First a general comment - the Dividist has noticed a consistent and continuous grumbling from those who self-identify variously as centrist/independent/moderate (CIM's) to the effect that their "centrist" views are not reflected in the makeup of the federal government. This despite the fact that if you put any group of self-selecting CIM's into a discussion of any specific policy issue there is no more agreement than one finds in a discussion of the same policy issue among self-selecting partisans. Look at any "No-Labels" thread on any specific issue for confirmation. They only appear to agree as long specific policy issues are not discussed. Well - No-Labelists do agree on one thing - everyone should be more polite and civil. They aren't any more polite or civil themselves, they just agree that everyone else should be.

Because there is this belief about a disenfranchised center, we get all kinds of sophisticated, convoluted explanations and proposed solutions to solve this problem - involving everything from open primaries,to proportional representation to wholesale constitutional changes to an oft-expressed preference for a parliamentary system where a 52% majority can run roughshod over a 48% minority in the name of "getting things done".

Occam’s Razor -the proposition that a simpler answer is more often than not the correct answer - suggests that this widely held assumption of a disenfranchised center is false. The simple explanation for why our legislature seems evenly balanced and highly polarized is that it is, in fact, an accurate reflection of the electorate at large.

Two studies support this notion that the true independent vote is smaller that generally believed - the 2009 Miller McCune piece which pulled on several threads to put the true Indy vote at around 15%, and a more recent Cato study which has tracked a Indy swing vote of about 14% through the elections of the 2000's. Lets be generous and put the Indy percentage at 20%. The point is this - there is no basis for a Centrist complaint, if the electorate is actually an evenly split 80% partisan, and 20% true Independent swing vote, with Centrists (whatever that means) being some smaller subset of the Independents.

Which brings the Dividist back to Andrew's conclusion, with which in this context, the Dividist agrees (excepting Andrew's use of the word "dangerous" to describe gridlock). Far more dangerous, is sweeping legislation (Obamacare) or policy initiatives (Iraq War), which are enabled without broad super-majority support during periods of one party rule.

There is a simple fix (which Andrew points out in his conclusion) that can be enabled by even a small subset of true independent voters. Instead of a dilemma, it is more effectively stated as an assertion:

Independent voters have the power to insist that government function with deals negotiated between the left and right by always voting for divided government. Every time. Without exception.

Divided government is not a bug. It's a feature.

The Dividist is guessing that Jen Worthy of Worthy Thoughts is a middle school student who is using this blog as a resource for a homework assignment. The Dividist thinks this because she ripped a couple of the Dividist's graphics for her blog report, about which she says "This relates to class because divided government and gridlock were two of our vocabulary words and we took notes on it". A better rationale than anyone can discern for your typical PaulKrugman screed. In any case, she does not decide whether or not she likes divided government in her report entitled "Divided Government and Gridlock"
"A divided government can be good because it encourages more policing of those in power by the opposition, limits spending, and the expansion of undesirable laws. It also forces the two parties to get along so that they can be able to work with one another. Its an example of checks and balances."
The Dividist is just happy to know that middle school teachers are including "divided government" and "gridlock" in their vocabulary class. The Dividist is also happy that Jenn got the definition and benefits right. The Dividist feels he is having an impact on the youth of America.

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context means - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock.

For this edition, we offer Michael Wolf presenting. Letter 2 America for February 14, 2011 posted at letters2america, saying, "What is CPAC really after? Watch Social Security and Medicare and you'll find out." I agree with almost nothing Michael says here, it is mostly partisan pablum, but at least it is not spam.


The Dividist has been remiss acknowledging carnival ringmasters, compilation editors and contest coordinators out there - time to bring back the popular Carnivalingus feature:

With that, we'll conclude this edition, as we may still get this under the wire and actually posted on the Ides.

Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided Government Octô et Quadrâgintâ (XLVIII) - Special Patriotic Tax Day Edition - on or about April 15th. Unless we don't get our taxes done, in which case Uncle Sam takes priority over the blog reader. Uncle Sam has guns. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

UPDATE - 3/16/11: Added Carnivalingus and still fixing typos

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Carnival of Divided Government

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Jackass Journalism

Memeorandum informs us of the story of the day. Hard to choose from the many posts and stories on the topic, but we'll go with the Dave Weigel description:
"The video sting artiste publishes the latest work from his shop -- a covertly taped interview with then-NPR Foundation senior VP for development Ron Schiller and current senior director of institutional giving Betsy Liley. Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar posed as members of a wealthy Muslim education foundation "founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood," and taped the NPR representatives -- largely Schiller -- answering them with exactly what they wanted to hear... Schiller is a professional fundraiser, not a journalist. His pandering to the group is actually sort of masterful."
The Dividist cannot get too worked up about this latest episode of Jackass Journalism* - The art of pranking political opposition in the hope of getting stupid and embarrassing quotes on tape (with extra credit for reinforcing your teams worst stereotypes of the other team).

The Dividist puts this particular clip in the same category as the prank call to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. What did we learn from these two "expose's"? We learn that politicians and professional fundraisers are willing to pander and pretend to agree with whatever comes out of the mouth of potential contributors with big checkbooks. The Dividist is shocked... shocked. Oh - we also learned that Ron Schiller is a dick.

The only potential policy issue here is the federal funding of NPR. The Dividist does not see how or why this should have any impact on that debate. It is interesting that Schiller says NPR would be "far better off"without federal funding, but he also said he was speaking only for himself and not NPR. The Dividist does not think there is any particularly good reason for taxpayers to fund this organization. But in terms of the actual level of funding, it is meaningless and a distraction from the very real budget crisis we are facing. The Dividist would far prefer to see our legislators working to solve the real problem - entitlements, rather than debating the merits of funding NPR, which does not rise to the level of a pimple on the ass of our budget crisis.

The Dividist expects the media and Congress will get to the real issues eventually. Whether they want to or not.

*BTW - the Dividist believes he is the first to use the term "Jackass Journalism" in this context and insists on attribution whenever and wherever it is used from now until forever. Yes you can google some random earlier uses, but this is the right name for the O'keefe style of Journo -kaf- whatever.

Cross-posted at Donklephant.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Read 'em and weep. USA "all in" with a bad hand.

For anyone interested in doing a deep dive into the state of the financial budget crisis facing the United States, you cannot do better than Mary Meeker's recently released report "USA Inc." Published under the auspices of venture capitalist Kleiner Perkins, it is detailed and comprehensive, yet clear, understandable and served up in digestible bites. It is well worth the time and effort.

The forward signed by Paul Volcker, George Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Ravitch and John Doerr sets the tone:
"Our country is in deep financial trouble. Federal, state and local governments are deep in debt yet continue to spend beyond their means, seemingly unable to stop. Our current path is simply unsustainable. What to do?

A lot of people have offered suggestions and proposed solutions. Few follow the four key guideposts to success that we see for setting our country back on the right path:
  1. create a deep and widely held perception of the reality of the problem and the stakes involved;
  2. reassure citizens that there are practical solutions;
  3. develop support in key constituencies; and
  4. determine the right timing to deliver the solutions.
USA Inc. uses each of these guideposts, and more; it is full of ideas that can help us build a better future for our children and our country."
Highly recommended. Every American should take the time to dig into this document. The Dividist skimmed it and was blown away. He expects to return often for deeper insights into the problem and as a reference for future posts.

At over 250 pages, with hundreds of clear and comprehensive graphs, it is impossible to do this work justice in a blog post. The Dividist is often (justifiably) accused of preferring thousands of words when a picture or a pithy paragraph would suffice. At least he is not the only one. In an attempt at exercising a little pontification discipline, in this post we will simply deal out a 5 card poker hand pulled from the hundreds in this presentation deck.

This busted hand should have been folded as soon as it was dealt. No one is buying the bluff now. Time to throw it in, cut the losses, and reshuffle.

Henry Blodgett says this is the only chart you need to understand why we are screwed. We cannot keep spending $5 dollars for every $3 we bring in.

It's the entitlements stupid. Spending is out of control and by 2025, entitlements plus net interest payments will absorb all of the USA's revenue. Yes, that is correct. In less than 15 years all taxes will go to interest and entitlements. As Mike Shedlock says "If that is not a shocking state of affairs, what is?"

We have to grow, but we cannot just grow our way out of the problem this time, as that presumption requires wildly unrealistic growth assumptions.

Taxing the rich cannot solve the problem. Taxing everyone does not solve the problem.

Unfunded liabilities are a crushing burden. We've got to lighten the load.

Net net. The Meeker solution, unsurprisingly, is all of the above. Spending must be slashed, unfunded entitlement liabilities must be reduced dramatically, and revenue must be raised. Yes, tax rates on the rich must go up, tax loopholes must close, and the tax base must also be broadened.

Make no mistake. There is something for everyone to dislike in her recommendations - right, left and center. The Dividist is no exception. Meeker actually advocates increases in Infrastructure, Education and Defense spending while slashing entitlements. The Dividist thinks nothing should be spared.

No matter. The Dividist is in.

Cut the bullshit.


Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Come On Down Sweet Virginia

Virginia is shaping up to be a key swing state for President Obama's re-election prospects. Since Jim Webb dropped out, it has also emerged as a critical must-win for the Democrats to retain their Senate majority.

Public Policy Polling has a couple of new polls out focusing on the state. So far, it's all good news for the Dems, and the Independent voters in Virginia are a big part of the story.

Obama Strong in Virginia:
"Part of the reason Obama's doing well in Virginia is that he has respectable, if not great, approval numbers there. 48% like the job he's doing to 45% who disapprove. There are two keys to his solid standing. The first is that 87% of Democrats stand with him- that's an indication he's generally holding onto white voters within his party, even ones who might lean a little bit more to the conservative side of the ideological spectrum.

The other key to his standing is that he's coming close to breaking even with independents- 48% disapprove of him to 42% who approve. It may seem counter intuitive that negative numbers with those voters are a good sign for Obama, but after two straight election years where independents in Virginia leaned toward the GOP by a margin of about 30 points a Democratic politician getting just slightly negative reviews from them is progress.
Toss up in Virginia
"The Virginia Senate race is about as much of a toss up as it could be: Tim Kaine and George Allen tie at 47% in our first poll since Jim Webb announced his retirement... The conventional wisdom has been that if Obama wins the state the Senate race is likely to come with him, but could there actually be a group of independent voters that go Obama/Allen in the interest of divided government? These early figures hint at the possibility of that and it's something to keep an eye on moving forward."
The most interesting element of the PPP summary is the highlighted question. Regardless of the answer, it is significant that the question of whether independents are consciously making divided government voting decisions is even being asked. As you might expect, the Dividist felt compelled to offer his answer in the comments on that post.

Clearly, it is an open question whether there is anything meaningful to be gleaned from polls 20 months out from an election. Minimally, these polls offer a baseline set of numbers to compare when the campaigns kick off in earnest.

However, it is not too early to start thinking about 2012. Last night Jon Stewart fired the starting gun by broadcasting the first "Indecision 2012" segment. The 2012 election cycle is underway:

In honor of this official start to the 2012 election season, the Dividist offers this musical suggestion for the 2012 Virginia Election Theme Song:
"Sweet Virginia" - Rolling Stones

Wadin' through the waste stormy winter,
And there's not a friend to help you through.
Tryin' to stop the waves behind your eyeballs,
Drop your reds, drop your greens and blues.

But come on, come on down Sweet Virginia,
Come on, come on down, I beg of you.
Come on, come on down, you got it in you.
Got to scrape that shit right off you shoes

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Coalition of the Divided
2012 Election Edition

The Dividist started this exclusive club during the 2008 election cycle, simultaneously initiating the "Coalition of the Divided Blogroll", which the Reader should be able to find in the right or left sidebar somewhere <===>

We barely got the 2010 edition posted in time for the midterms among much angst and gnashing of teeth. To avoid that last minute panic during this election cycle, we are getting an early start on the 2012 membership drive. Membership is open to anyone writing anything in a vaguely positive way on the subject of divided government. New recruits will be added to the ranks from now until the 2012 election.

Fair warning: Inclusion on this list will make it easy to identify the backsliders and the disingenuous. You know, backsliders like this guy. To be fair (or not) we expect Sully back on the COD membership roll this cycle. Since the most likely scenario is that the Divided Government vote in 2012 will be a vote to re-elect Barack Obama, we expect to see many 2006ish Born Again Dividists like Andrew Sullivan who only prefer Divided Government when there is a risk of One Party Republican Rule. No matter. The Dividist will be watching. The Dividist will point out the inconsistent and insincere. But the Dividist will also welcome hypocritical partisan pretenders to the ranks.

You too can join this glorious movement and march in solidarity with the many millions thousands hundreds tens of your brothers and sisters standing shoulder to shoulder in the Coalition of the Divided! Just write anything vaguely favorable to Divided Government and/or Gridlock, then let the Dividist know where to find it in the comments or via e-mail. The Dividist will add it to this post, link you, blogroll you, favorite you, digg you, friend you, follow you, tweet you, paint your house and walk your dog.

This is a living list. New recruits and draftees will be updated to this post and in the blogroll periodically between now and election day. Stay Divided.

The United Coalition of the Divided
2012 Election

The Dividist Mother Nature
ABC Newspapers - Chuck Drury Poli-Tea - Damon Eris
Bozeman Daily Chronicle President - Bill Clinton
Cato Institute - David Boaz President - Dwight Eisenhower
Cato Institute - Marcus Ethridge Real Clear Markets - John Tamney
Donklephant - Kranky Kritter Rational Republican - Sean Hazlett
DWSUWF - Tully Right Thinking Left Coast - HAL 10000
Facebook Fan - Janet Cutrona Rise of the Center - Solomon Kleinsworth
Facebook Fan - Peter Shaw Rule 22 - Jordan Raqusa
Facebook Fan - Ryan Christiano Silicon Graybeard
Forbes - Ken Fisher U.S. Senate - Mark Kirk
I Street Mess - Charlie U.S. Senate - Rand Paul
Justin Harter of America U.S. Senate - Roy Blunt
Las Cruces Sun - Walt Rubel Washington Times - J.T. Young
Power and Control - M. Simon
New Kind of 3rd Party - DLW
Worthy Thoughts - Jen Worthy
Contra O'Reilly - Will Hart
The Yin Blog - Tung Yin
Crowhill Weblog - Greg Krehbiel
Enterprise Irregulars - Chris Selland
Symmetry Capital Management
Wash Park Prophet - Andrew Oh-Willeke
Post Libertarian - Joshua Hedlund
Independent Rage - Rager
Liberty Ecoomics - Mark Anderson
Daily Kos - Ponder Stibbons
LAST UPDATED: 10-July-12

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.